I thought this e-mail was sent in a happy world where Damore was not fired, but no, paragraph 3: > Why did we fire you? This is a much higher bar than just po

I thought this e-mail was sent in a happy world where Damore was not fired, but no, paragraph 3: > Why did we fire you? This is a much higher bar than just pointing out how the points in the memo were wrong. Damore's memo was not a peer reviewed paper, and even those have mistakes which are tolerated. > Your memo was a great example of what’s called “motivated reasoning”—seeking out only the information that supports what you already believe. It was derogatory to women in our industry and elsewhere. Despite your stated support for diversity and fairness, it demonstrated profound prejudice. Your chain of reasoning had so many missing links that it hardly mattered what you based your argument on. We try to hire people who are willing to follow where the facts lead, whatever their preconceptions. In your case we clearly got it wrong. This is unsatifactory. Are you fired from Google if you display biases all humans have? How can we notice and overcome them if we can't have discussion without getting fired? The Economist should have said the firing was wrong, and changed the premise to no fireing, or 80% of the e-mail should be about the justification of the firing.